rules and regulations -- George Krasle
From: Fred H Olson (fholsoncohousing.org)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:07:01 -0700 (MST)
George Krasle <GSKrasle [at] hotmail.com>
is the author of the message below. 
It was posted by Fred the Cohousing-L list manager <fholson [at] cohousing.org> 
because the message included HTML ;      PLEASE do not post HTML, see
   http://csf.colorado.edu/cohousing/2001/msg01672.html
--------------------  FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS --------------------

All,

Excuse me for taking so long to offer my response, my opinions, on this
subject of "rules." And more than rules; the question regarding
"visioning" is almost the same.

There were some good, thoughtful responses, but maybe I can add a little.

Part of the original message: How do other communities manage to maintain
rules and regulations. How far would you go to sanction individual members
who dont follow them. What are the implications of too much tolerance, or
on the contrary too much severity.

And some responses:

This is much less of a problem than one fears when one first considers
cohousing. People who are even willing to think about cohousing are not
the sort to be really difficult over rules of living. And they are adults.

If you can get through the process of site finding, designing, recruiting,
and building, you are not likely to be a belligerent person. This is one
function of building the place together and full participation of all
members -- you find out a lot of stuff before you move in and either work
it through or you leave.

While we have had some run ins over rules. one person yells and another
yells back and someone sorts it out. It essentially comes down to
understanding why the rule was made in the first place.

In Sociocracy one of the functions is information/measurement. It is
essential. People need to have full information and then you need to
measure to see if what you have agreed to is working as expected.

Most people respond to reasoned arguments based on information and
demonstrated results.

And:

Start with exploring what your common purpose is and work toward a mission
statement when your group is more solid.

I agree with this. You can do something simple like, ask each person to
write something about what they envision for themselves and why each wants
to be part of cohousing. Each new person can look at the current ones and
write theri own. You'll soon ge a picture. So start with individuals,
which will eventually feed into a group mission.

Perhaps the people who are currently there can make a rough/draft list of
elements, eg sutainability principles or aim for consensus, without
getting into the detail. You'll have something to give new people. It's a
bit of a courting process at the early stage.

And:

  Ask why you need rules in the first place.

Are they an attempt to control behaviour, or are they agreements that
empower all members? While we need to understand the codes and boundaries,
tacit or overt, which affect how we live together, I believe it's
important to know where they're coming from. Do they arrive from a sense
of, "how do we stop people from ...". Or, " how can we help each other to
..."  Policy needs to relate to an explicit reason/rationale: why do we
need this policy and does it make sense?

Policies need to be visible. Don't assume that people remember the
'rules'. Make sure everyone agrees with them, and if not, how do they
suggest they are modified, and why.

And now what I would add:

One main purpose of rules, bylaws, all such things, is, as they teach, is
to protect an unpopular minority from the powerful and influential. Should
the rules or their implementation come under the authority of a person or
clique or even a majority, it is possible for this purpose to be
subverted.

You know that I have had a hard time at Songaia. It would not be so bad if
the rules, the bylaws, were followed, but they are not, admittedly so.
Obviously, I am unpopular, and maybe I deserve some blame for that, but I
joined on the strength of the rules and on the promise of the "Vision
Statement" and the protection of the promises made me.

For God's sake, consider them soberly, and respect what rules you adopt,
and consider more than the PR value of your Vision Statement and publicity
materials; some people, like me, will take them seriously. Don't say you
are "dedicated" to something, consensus, inclusion, gardening,
permaculture, "living lightly," whatever, unless you know something about
it, and what people familiar with it will expect if you invoke it. You
wouldn't want to be in the situation of Songaia, where your public face
attracts people you consider "weirdoes," as me and my friends, especially
the ones associated with Seattle Tilth and the local Horticulture
community, have been jeered at there. To some people, the words have
meaning, and using them merely as publicity buzzwords is a mistake. And
rules can be seen as promises, and making or breaking them should not be
undertaken lightly.

What good is it to have rules saying that a member's proposals must be
admitted to committee's agendas and that grievances may be brought up at
meetings, if they only apply at the will of the leaders or if the member
has no grievances? Or to profess a dedication to a principle or a
philosophy, but reject the counsel and experience of the people who
formulated it? A rule must apply to everyone, not just the popular and
influential, and a "Vision Statement" should reflect actuality, of action,
intention or progress. Of course there will be mistakes, but those are
opportunities for growth, for amendment, not for intransigence and
exclusion.

Thank-you,

George


_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.